What, exactly, do you feel your contributions are worth on this forum? Or, for that matter, your attitude? You'll leave 03-04 alone, and everybody else, too, because they mostly know their stuff, and obviously, you don't. Settle down or take a hike.

Yes, it amazes me too, that you can be so - whatever it is - so seamlessly. Understand this: 03-04 is the star of the show. Bar none. He is the reason this forum exists. He knows more than all of us put together. Take my word for it, since you seem unable to recognize it. So when he does a fly-by and drops a few gems, the last thing I am going to allow is anybody - anybody - to take cheap shots at him.

Yes, it amazes me too, that you can be so - whatever it is - so seamlessly. Understand this: 03-04 is the star of the show. Bar none. He is the reason this forum exists. He knows more than all of us put together. Take my word for it, since you seem unable to recognize it. So when he does a fly-by and drops a few gems, the last thing I am going to allow is anybody - anybody - to take cheap shots at him.

Since I'm evidently teetering to the edge of being added to the pile, I'll ask you your question:

What is it that you think I add to the forum? Earlier this month, you were praising me and now you say I don't know jack shit about anything. Which one is it?

In regards to 03-04, fine. If the admins wish that to be the policy, I will follow it out of respect for them.

You add numbers. But as has been made abundantly clear, of late, numbers are not very important. Sometimes you say worthy things. Sometimes not. Often you only insult others, or trash what they have to say. Think Bruce Charlton, here, as a recent example. I mostly agreed with you, but would never be so crass as to publish, for all to see, my own views on his character. Or anybody else's. If you question something somebody writes, then question it. Civilly. You can do that, can't you? Sure you can.

Wild - since you asked me to provide my understanding, I will attempt to do so:

God is a word. But God is also something far from a word.

As you know, words are used interpersonally, to communicate and share with other human beings.

God is a useful word, if we both understand what is meant by it. But if one of us fails to understand the word, then one of us obviously shouldn't use it.

Is it me, or is it you? This is a question I sincerely ask you. I'm not trying to be a smart-ass - though I suspect that you think I am nothing but.

God signifies something that is beyond words. That's why God can neither be defined, nor redefined. If God was indeed subject to such wordgames, that would mean that he was in our power to use as we saw fit. But this notion goes against everything that God as a matter of fact is.

You can experience God, if you truly seek it. But this implies suspending your own ideas about what he/it is supposed to be - and by extension, suspending your own ideas about, how I am using the word. For I do not use it as you seem to think I do. I do not 'define it', as you say.

Just because you seek a definition doesn't mean that I do. In fact, I'm trying to say just the opposite of how you seem to read my words: I do not claim to 'understand' God - so how could I ever promote my own understanding of him? I would be promoting something, that didn't exist, and that I knew to be non-existent.

Crow knows what I am talking about. And I know what crow is talking about. We don't always use the same words to describe it, but we both know that this doesn't matter.

Sure, God is 'nothing but' reality. But then again reality is 'nothing but' God.

If you see reality as a 'nothing but...' then I suggest you take a deeper look. If you are sincere, then you won't be disappointed.

I am going to react to anyone who chooses to waltz in and declare that his understanding of "God" is the only correct one possible, and other interpretations are not only false, but a sin.

You yourself claimed recently that God and Satan were metaphors.

Quote

He knows something you clearly don't, Wild.

Yeah, and so does Bruce Charlton.

This didn't happen. All he said is that the word God is not the thing it describes. The "sin" is in false attribution.

Edit: he beat me to it.

Edit, edit:

I think defining God with the understanding per the above is fine in order to get to shared values and shared meaning. Otherwise civilization fragments. Which is less important to some than others, but the reality is: they form anyway, so why make them nightmares?